Perhaps this has been stated before, but I tend to view the sensor as the "digital film" of the camera. Every film has a different grain structure and some will test "better/higher" than other film depending on how you structure the test. (Therefore, you can get different scores depending on how you weigh things). You can post-process just about anything to look just like just about anything these days, but in the end, you pick the "digital film" that you prefer. I've always preferred the look of Canon "film" for it's skin tones and visual pop. This is even when I used old Nikon prime lens with an adapter. No score can convince me otherwise.

In the high-end audio world, forums would blow up about tube vs. solid state amps and the argument always ended up being how cleanly an amp "measured" vs. how pleasing it actually sounds, and there was rarely a correlation between the two.

This is true because film is a hardware device, or can be true if you shoot JPG.

Shooting RAW you can work on whatever you want, the only limit being the quality of the RAW file and the amout of information stored. DXO score is useful in comparing this.

Shooting RAW it really doesn't make sense to say "Oh, the Canon colors!". That is today more a lens trait than a sensor's.

Having worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW files, I respectfully disagree. The "quality of the RAW file" includes the quality of the color. Both RAW files have a certain color cast to them. As I stated originally, you can post-process quite a bit, but just as some prefer the shadow recovery of Nikon RAW files, I prefer how color is captured (and corrected if necessary) with Canon RAW. For me, I can get the right exposure most of the time so shadow recovery is less of a concern for me than getting the colors just right. Can I post-process Nikon files and make them look great? Sure. For the look I want, it's less work with Canon RAW.

Anyway, without being a fanboy at all. I know that nikon cameras recently are very very good , DXO over rates them, how can the d3200 be as good as the 5dmark III...

It cant and noone says it is. What Dxo says is that certain aspects of 3200 sensor are better than canon's. Thats reasonable since canon's sensor tech remained quasi-stagnant for a whole generation. Lets not overgeneralise just because we dont like it

Perhaps this has been stated before, but I tend to view the sensor as the "digital film" of the camera. Every film has a different grain structure and some will test "better/higher" than other film depending on how you structure the test. (Therefore, you can get different scores depending on how you weigh things). You can post-process just about anything to look just like just about anything these days, but in the end, you pick the "digital film" that you prefer. I've always preferred the look of Canon "film" for it's skin tones and visual pop. This is even when I used old Nikon prime lens with an adapter. No score can convince me otherwise.

In the high-end audio world, forums would blow up about tube vs. solid state amps and the argument always ended up being how cleanly an amp "measured" vs. how pleasing it actually sounds, and there was rarely a correlation between the two.

This is true because film is a hardware device, or can be true if you shoot JPG.

Shooting RAW you can work on whatever you want, the only limit being the quality of the RAW file and the amout of information stored. DXO score is useful in comparing this.

Shooting RAW it really doesn't make sense to say "Oh, the Canon colors!". That is today more a lens trait than a sensor's.

Having worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW files, I respectfully disagree. The "quality of the RAW file" includes the quality of the color. Both RAW files have a certain color cast to them. As I stated originally, you can post-process quite a bit, but just as some prefer the shadow recovery of Nikon RAW files, I prefer how color is captured (and corrected if necessary) with Canon RAW. For me, I can get the right exposure most of the time so shadow recovery is less of a concern for me than getting the colors just right. Can I post-process Nikon files and make them look great? Sure. For the look I want, it's less work with Canon RAW.

(And, I agree the lens matters a tremendous amount...)

I understand what you mean but at the same time I don't fully agree. Softwares like LightRoom let you apply corrections in batch or even while importing. Or you can just calibrate your camera. So in the end you only have to do the work once when you set up the workflow.

So again, I insist that lenses have much more impact in that So maybe in the end you prefer Canon because of the Canon lenses signature more than because of how the sensor captures light and colors.

A lot of denial in the forum about inferiority of Canon's sensors. The knee jerk argument is that Dxomark:1) is biased, or 2) their tests are bad because "I" get superior results out of my Canon, unlike "my" Nikon friend who is struggling, or3) is meaningless because I can bracket and get high DR, so low DR is not big deal

DXOMarks is simply giving empirical evidence to the inferiority of Canon's decade old tech versus modern tech of Sonikon. If we as Canon consumers (whether we like the brand or, more importantly, stuck to it due to sunk costs) live in denial, Canon has no incentive to improve. Result? we get shafted while competition has better cameras. Period!

Having worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW files, I respectfully disagree. The "quality of the RAW file" includes the quality of the color. Both RAW files have a certain color cast to them. As I stated originally, you can post-process quite a bit, but just as some prefer the shadow recovery of Nikon RAW files, I prefer how color is captured (and corrected if necessary) with Canon RAW. For me, I can get the right exposure most of the time so shadow recovery is less of a concern for me than getting the colors just right. Can I post-process Nikon files and make them look great? Sure. For the look I want, it's less work with Canon RAW.

(The Canon 1Dx is not yet rated.)What are the chances that one of the reasons for the new sensor in the 6D is to catapult Canon's sensor performance into the mid 90's? I can't see Canon doing that considering the $3,500 EOS 5D III just came out and has a score of just 81. But Nikon's new $2,100 D600 kicks butt with a score of 94!

Sensor performance isn't everything... but, if I were to choose Nikon or Canon today, I wouldn't be choosing Canon.

1. their overall scores are weird, how do you combine so many different performance factors into one number that would work for everyone? you can't

2. their PRINT generally seem to be pretty good and quite useful to compare various aspects of one camera to another though

3. their lens tests, unlike their sensor tests, appear to be a mess, i don't trust them at all

4. I doubt the 6D will make a big leap, you do much better at high iso for SNR than the 1DX and I'd doubt, just a couple months later, they introduce a new sensor that has better DR at high iso than the 1DX or than both at low ISO, that would be hideous planning for the 5D3/1DX. Then again, it would be nice in that at least it would prove they can do it. It is odd they have a supposedly new 20MP sensor.

IMO, their Measurements (screen) are valid and quite useful. Their Scores are steaming pile of misleading cow excrement.Just a little reality check...

(screen) isn't usually the best setting to compare sensor camera vs camera, it can tell you things that are useful, but using (print) to compare various sensors generally makes more sense and for a more fair comparison

A lot of denial in the forum about inferiority of Canon's sensors. The knee jerk argument is that Dxomark:1) is biased, or 2) their tests are bad because "I" get superior results out of my Canon, unlike "my" Nikon friend who is struggling, or...

We were referring to our observations and didn't say that DxO measurements are wrong, they just might not give full picture. If you know more than we, please share your own thoughts on the topic and add some image samples to back up your words.

P.S. If you don't know about the difference in 5D vs. 1D color, you might not understand what we're talking about

i ignore the stupid dxo tests they mean nothing to me seen a video with the nikon guy there on youtube almost masturbating to nikon being on top seriously he is just a gear head his photos are nothing special at all.

Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons. (High score is better.):

Canon is behind on DR and noise due to a Sony patent they apparently are having trouble working around. That said, DxO is a complete and total joke. This is a company that ranks consumer DSLRs above medium format digital backs in IQ.

Let that sink in for a moment. Their testing methodology actually results in higher scores for APS-C sensors than for MF sensors. (Queue the DxO fans claiming that their overall IQ scores don't report overall IQ, except of course when those same fans wish to prove that camera A has better overall IQ then camera B.)

I've personally tested DR for a number of cameras (the right way). My results match results from sites like DPReview. DxO is always off, and always quite obviously wrong. It's not by a set amount in each case such that you could say their test is too sensitive or not sensitive enough. It's all over the place, over in some cases and under in others. It's like the idiots never tried shooting the cameras they test.

Canon is not so far behind in sensors that I would avoid choosing them. They're behind a little bit, not a lot. But my problem with them is that they are charging more and/or skimping on features at a time when there's an IQ gap. When your competitors have a sensor edge, you pound them on features and price. The 6D should have a real AF system and be a bit cheaper. The 5D3 should be priced against the D600. And there should already be a 45 MP FF that is priced against the D800. Oh, and cut out this 20/21/22 MP nonsense. Just go to 24 MP on FF. That's not enough of a change in pixel density to affect anything. (Though I suppose they may be trying to increase wafer yields with redundant circuitry that might eat into the MP they put on FF. This may also be the reason why the 6D uses a different sensor.)

This is a recent issue with them. Throughout the 2000's they dominated sensor IQ, feature set, and price. They're also getting greedy with new lenses. Again, they're not terrible here. It's just annoying to seem them slip behind. I sincerely hope they improve in all respects because their lens library is the best out there.

Jose Ormazabal

From my point of view it is evident that sony/nikon sensors are superior to canon's. I would love to have my 5d III with the D600 sensor.It is hard to believe that the majority of canon users are not disappointed with the increasing gap in sensor technology between Nikon and Canon.

I'm not a fan of either brand. I'm just a Canon user with a lot of glass and therefore married for good or bad. Right now, things are going bad.

A lot of denial in the forum about inferiority of Canon's sensors. The knee jerk argument is that Dxomark:

How about DxOMark:* Does not agree with the empirical results of any other major testing site. (They are always the odd ball out.)* Produces absurd scores, such as scoring APS-C consumer sensors higher than MFDB sensors.

Quote

DXOMarks is simply giving empirical evidence to the inferiority of Canon's decade old tech versus modern tech of Sonikon.

I'll agree that Canon is behind on DR and noise because I see that in my own tests and in the tests of other reputable sites. I've even seen a lengthy discussion on DPReview about the specific patent related to sensor circuitry that is the cause of this. But scientific testing is about reproducibility, and nobody can reproduce the absurd numbers generated out of DxO. Sorry, they're a bad joke.